I'm over it, I hope they are too [Archive] - BillsZone.com

BillsOwnAll

11-03-2017, 03:57 PM

bleve

11-03-2017, 04:54 PM

I expected them to fold, so I'm not disappointed. I've seen this movie before. If this is the only brain fart of a performance they have this year, then all is ok, but I'm not holding my breath.

coastal

11-03-2017, 05:17 PM

What about 17 years is so hard to comprehend?

Generalissimus Gibby

11-03-2017, 05:36 PM

What about 17 years is so hard to comprehend?

That the loops around the 7 are getting ready to become 18. ****, our drought will soon be old enough to vote, smoke, and look at porn.

Scumbag College

11-03-2017, 06:19 PM

New coach, GM, and mostly new players but this felt very familiar. We will have Benjamin and hopefully Clay and Gaines back for the Saints. Hopefully that makes a difference.

Next Sunday at home against the Saints will tell us pretty much all we need to know about the 2017 Bills.

stuckincincy

11-03-2017, 11:28 PM

Good post.

BillsOwnAll

11-04-2017, 09:06 AM

I knew everyone was going to say "I knew it if always happens "

Let me tell you, without researching it, I can almost guarantee this is the first time in the 17 years we lost a game in week 9 and still had a 1 game lead on the WC. Do you think the bills are the only team struggling? The fins are in a hotter mess than we are, the Texans just lost their QB, the ravens are far from consistent. 9-7 could get us in. And I think we can all agree that we done care if we're 8-8 and in or 13-3 and in. JUST END THE DROUGHT

BOBM253

11-04-2017, 09:24 AM

The thing that is familiar is not that they lost but the ridiculous fashion that they lost. We did not look competitive in that game and had absolutely no answers for what the jets were doing. To lose is one thing, to lose looking overwhelmed is another.

ublinkwescore

11-04-2017, 10:03 AM

I just hope our D didnt get exposed.

OpIv37

11-04-2017, 10:35 AM

Yes obviously most disappointing thing that has happen was last night.

Everything went wrong, not one thing went right (except zay waking up)

They have 10 days to prepare for drew Brees and the saints, at home.

This is the statement game of the season, they need to show they can bounce back. I'm not saying this is a "great" team, but GREAT teams lose games they should win every year, it's how they bounce back that's important.

Well, you shouldn't be "over it" until this team makes the playoffs because that abysmal loss made playoffs significantly less likely. I'll be optimistic and say 10 wins gets us in (it usually does but it's not a guarantee). That means we have to go 5-3 or better in a stretch that include the Saints, Pats 2x, Chiefs at Arrowhead and a West Coast trip against the Chargers. Hell, the Dolphins are struggling but they've put together enough solid performances this year that we can't sleep on them. The only "easy" game left is the Colts without Luck. Because of this loss, there is no margin of error.

Wally The Barber

11-04-2017, 10:50 AM

I want the entire team castrated

BillsOwnAll

11-04-2017, 12:16 PM

Well, you shouldn't be "over it" until this team makes the playoffs because that abysmal loss made playoffs significantly less likely. I'll be optimistic and say 10 wins gets us in (it usually does but it's not a guarantee). That means we have to go 5-3 or better in a stretch that include the Saints, Pats 2x, Chiefs at Arrowhead and a West Coast trip against the Chargers. Hell, the Dolphins are struggling but they've put together enough solid performances this year that we can't sleep on them. The only "easy" game left is the Colts without Luck. Because of this loss, there is no margin of error.

Look again.. 9-7 will be the 2nd if not both WC spots this year, it's an unusual weak year.

Chet

11-04-2017, 12:51 PM

I'm not over it, and won't be till this team shows they can win on the road. If the Bills can beat the Saints next week I think it's safe to assume they'll finish 7-1 at home. That means we only need 2 more road wins, but we won't be favored on the road the rest of the year.

BillsOwnAll

11-04-2017, 02:01 PM

Also. Why do you always tell people how to think. I can be over it if I want. I hope the team isn't dwelling on it like you

Novacane

11-04-2017, 02:19 PM

I expect they will beat the Saints. They are a different team at home. I don't expect them to win another road game this year though which means no playoffs again!

Novacane

11-04-2017, 02:21 PM

Look again.. 9-7 will be the 2nd if not both WC spots this year, it's an unusual weak year.

0-4 the rest of the way on the road. 3-1 at home. 8-8.

Generalissimus Gibby

11-04-2017, 02:21 PM

I want the entire team castrated

I take it you were a part owner of the Saddam era Iraqi National Football team

OpIv37

11-04-2017, 04:20 PM

Also. Why do you always tell people how to think. I can be over it if I want. I hope the team isn't dwelling on it like you

You can "be over it" if you want to, but it's nonsensical. The playoff implications remain no matter how illogically you choose to feel about it.

YardRat

11-04-2017, 07:03 PM

jamze132

11-04-2017, 07:05 PM

Gees people Ever hear of the saying "any given Sunday"? Hell, the Jags beat Pittsburgh in Pittsburgh...

OpIv37

11-04-2017, 07:12 PM

5-3 at the midpoint is a lot better than most expected. I know some people like to revel in 'being right' and bringing up the past, but by the same token they should be able to man-up and admit they were wrong about this team so far this season.

If you're talking about me, I've consistently said that I'd love to be wrong about this team. And if I am, I'll gladly admit it. But, I'm not wrong yet:

2002- Started 5-3, ended 8-8
2003- Started 2-0 with two huge victories, finished 6-10
2005- Won the first game and everyone was excited about Losman, finished 5-11
2008- Started 4-0, finished 7-9
2011- Won the first 3 and got to 5-2, finished 6-10 (lost 7 straight and 8 of the last 9)
2014- Won the first 2, got to 5-3, finished with a winning record of 9-7 but still missed the playoffs
2016- Lost the first 2, won 4 straight to get to 4-2, still finished 7-9

Please stop making me post this.

YardRat

11-04-2017, 07:29 PM

OpIv37

11-04-2017, 07:34 PM

I don't know why you keep posting it, there isn't anybody around here that isn't aware of it. Unless you can actually generate some kind of legitimate causation or correlation that definitively ties those seasons together and extend that characteristic to this season, it's meaningless. "But, but...it's the Buffalo Bills" is not relevant...and that's all you've got.

You just posted something about people who didn't expect much of this team being wrong. Your actions don't match your words.

Oh, and I think Thursday proved "But, but... It's the Buffalo Bills!" is relevant. We choked in an important night game against a division rival that we've already beaten once. Different coaches, different players, different FO, different owners even... night game results are the same.

YardRat

11-04-2017, 07:51 PM

You just posted something about people who didn't expect much of this team being wrong. Your actions don't match your words.

This statement makes no sense.

Oh, and I think Thursday proved "But, but... It's the Buffalo Bills!" is relevant. We choked in an important night game against a division rival that we've already beaten once. Different coaches, different players, different FO, different owners even... night game results are the same.

So why don't you explain how "It's the Buffalo Bills" is THE factor that leads to the results you keep posting. How is "It's Buffalo" the cause, and ending up with a .500 or worst record at the end of the season is the effect?

You honestly don't understand how ridiculous that is, do you?

OpIv37

11-04-2017, 08:03 PM

This statement makes no sense.

So why don't you explain how "It's the Buffalo Bills" is THE factor that leads to the results you keep posting. How is "It's Buffalo" the cause, and ending up with a .500 or worst record at the end of the season is the effect?

You honestly don't understand how ridiculous that is, do you?

Yeah it sounds ridiculous. I can't explain it. But for the last 17 years, it's what happens. Different players, coaches, systems, FO, even owners- same results.

Look at the night game. We all know this team has struggled in night games. This year- different coaches, different players, different systems, different FO. They've overachieved all year. Then the night game comes- same result. Makes zero sense. There is no logical explanation for it. But it's what happens time and time again.

OpIv37

11-04-2017, 08:06 PM

5-3 at the midpoint is a lot better than most expected. I know some people like to revel in 'being right' and bringing up the past, but by the same token they should be able to man-up and admit they were wrong about this team so far this season.

I don't know why you keep posting it, there isn't anybody around here that isn't aware of it. Unless you can actually generate some kind of legitimate causation or correlation that definitively ties those seasons together and extend that characteristic to this season, it's meaningless. "But, but...it's the Buffalo Bills" is not relevant...and that's all you've got.

You say "there isn't anyone around here who isn't aware of it." Then you also say "wrong so far."

Well, if you were aware of it, then you'd know that "wrong so far" doesn't mean dick. Everyone who was "wrong so far" in every one of those years turned out to be right.

Your words don't match your actions.

YardRat

11-04-2017, 08:19 PM

You say "there isn't anyone around here who isn't aware of it." Then you also say "wrong so far."
Well, if you were aware of it, then you'd know that "wrong so far" doesn't mean dick. Everyone who was "wrong so far" in every one of those years turned out to be right.
Your words don't match your actions.

First of all, there are no 'actions' to reference, so that's a ridiculous comment also. Second, regardless of what the team does the rest of the way out anybody that thought this was a tank season...a four win team...a two or three win team at the halfway point...is wrong. Finally and once again, unless you can conclude some kind of cause and effect you have NOTHING that resembles any kind of evidence, at all.

OpIv37

11-04-2017, 08:27 PM

First of all, there are no 'actions' to reference, so that's a ridiculous comment also. Second, regardless of what the team does the rest of the way out anybody that thought this was a tank season...a four win team...a two or three win team at the halfway point...is wrong. Finally and once again, unless you can conclude some kind of cause and effect you have NOTHING that resembles any kind of evidence, at all.

Nothing that resembles evidence except actual results, over and over and over and over and over and over again....

BillsOwnAll

11-04-2017, 09:04 PM

Well if it's night divisional games that's or curse I guess saints at home shouldn't be a problem!

Only a "curse" compares the 2014 bills to say the 2002 bills. But yes I agree some people want them to suck just to be right. What was not to love about this team after the Oakland rout. Let's see how THIS team bounces back after a tough loss. THIS team isn't the teams in the past no matter how much you try to compare it

Arm of Harm

11-04-2017, 11:37 PM

5-3 at the midpoint is a lot better than most expected. I know some people like to revel in 'being right' and bringing up the past, but by the same token they should be able to man-up and admit they were wrong about this team so far this season.

I'm guessing that literally no one predicted we'd beat the Broncos, beat the Falcons, beat some other good teams, then lose to a Jets team that's supposed to be tanking. Just about everyone has been wrong about this team, in one way, shape, or form.

Having said that, the Bills' method for winning is not sustainable. Is it possible to use a very good turnover differential to mask other weaknesses? Yes. For a time. Over the long run, a highly favorable turnover differential is very difficult to sustain.

Let's say that the turnover differential is neutral in each of our remaining 8 games. With a neutral turnover differential, do we beat the Chiefs? The Saints? Do we win either Patriots game? That's four likely losses right there, if the turnover battle is even. Plus maybe one additional loss, from among the other four games.

jamze132

11-05-2017, 01:26 AM

Yeah it sounds ridiculous. I can't explain it. But for the last 17 years, it's what happens. Different players, coaches, systems, FO, even owners- same results.

Look at the night game. We all know this team has struggled in night games. This year- different coaches, different players, different systems, different FO. They've overachieved all year. Then the night game comes- same result. Makes zero sense. There is no logical explanation for it. But it's what happens time and time again.

Can you honestly say you don't see any difference between this regime and the previous ones that had a significant roll in the 17 straight seasons?

jamze132

11-05-2017, 01:31 AM

I'm guessing that literally no one predicted we'd beat the Broncos, beat the Falcons, beat some other good teams, then lose to a Jets team that's supposed to be tanking. Just about everyone has been wrong about this team, in one way, shape, or form.

Having said that, the Bills' method for winning is not sustainable. Is it possible to use a very good turnover differential to mask other weaknesses? Yes. For a time. Over the long run, a highly favorable turnover differential is very difficult to sustain.

Let's say that the turnover differential is neutral in each of our remaining 8 games. With a neutral turnover differential, do we beat the Chiefs? The Saints? Do we win either Patriots game? That's four likely losses right there, if the turnover battle is even. Plus maybe one additional loss, from among the other four games.

You make a good point about our current method of winning not being sustainable but I think if we continue to play the way we have been, I can see us making a bid towards the end of the season for the playoffs. Having a healthy Clay and adding Benjamin could really spark this offense and not make us so one-dimensional. Zay Jones even seems to be coming around which is another weapon to have. Those three receivers, if healthy and productive will challenge every defense we'll play the rest of the season. IF Shady stays healthy, it's a lot for a defense to digest.

Every NFL team has to evolve over the course of the season and I think we're heading in the right direction.

sudzy

11-05-2017, 04:02 AM

I can see the Bills dropping the next 4. NO, Chargers in LA, KC, NE. Which of these teams isn't a lot better then the Jets? If the Bills aren't a +2 in the TO battle in any of these games, I don't see them winning. Then a win over Indy and Miami here, before NE smacks them around again. setting up a "run for the bus" game in Miami. 7-9/8-8. Mediocre for 18 years, now.

Ginger Vitis

11-05-2017, 01:17 PM

Then the night game comes- same result.
Youre implying the Bills lose every night game and that is not true... Since 2012 their record in night games is 3-4

Ginger Vitis

11-05-2017, 01:19 PM

because that abysmal loss made playoffs significantly less likely.

Statistically that statement is wrong... it is not a "significant difference"

Arm of Harm

11-05-2017, 02:56 PM

Statistically that statement is wrong... it is not a "significant difference"

For your post to be accurate, the following would have to be true:

1) Someone measures the percentage chance of a 5-2 team making the playoffs.
2) That same someone measures the percentage chance of a 5-3 team making the playoffs.
3) It is found that the second measurement is within the margin of error of the first measurement.

Even then, the outcome would be dependent on sample size. The smaller your sample size, the larger your margin of error. If someone uses a sample size of 10, and finds no statistically significant difference, that doesn't mean that a person using a sample size of 100 will necessarily fail to find a statistically significant difference.

I haven't seen evidence that either you or OpIv have done the math necessary to argue about statistical significance. OpIv didn't bring math into the conversation, and there was no need for him to do any math. You on the other hand made mathematical claims, thus implying you'd performed, or at least referenced, the math necessary to support those claims.

Bottom line: every loss makes the playoffs less likely, every win makes them more likely. Any reasonable statistical analysis will pick up on this fact, assuming a sufficiently large sample size.

YardRat

11-05-2017, 04:13 PM

Nothing that resembles evidence except actual results, over and over and over and over and over and over again....

Your 'actual results' are just as relevant for this year's team as the results from the 90's when those teams were going to a Super Bowl over and over and over again.

Arm of Harm

11-05-2017, 04:36 PM

Your 'actual results' are just as relevant for this year's team as the results from the 90's when those teams were going to a Super Bowl over and over and over again.

When McDermott took over, the Bills didn't have much talent. Over half our current players weren't with the team before McDermott was hired.

Of those players who were with the team the day McDermott was hired, many were acquired before Whaley became GM. For example, Cordy Glenn, Kyle Williams, and Eric Wood were all drafted before Whaley took over. Of those, Glenn has been dealing with injuries, while Williams and Wood are getting long in the tooth.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any long-term answers we acquired during the Whaley era. Not one. LeSean McCoy is a very good to outstanding football player, but how long can McDermott really count on him, before he too gets long in the tooth?

Considering the cards he was dealt, McDermott has done an outstanding job of taking this team to 5-3. But let's not kid ourselves. This Bills team's talent level is in line with the talent level of our usual during the playoff drought era, and is nothing at all like the talent we had when we were going to Super Bowls. McDermott's moxie, his coaching, and his winning of the turnover battle can only take this team so far. Eventually the talent level will need to be increased, if we're going to start winning postseason games. I'm sure McDermott and Beane understand that, and are planning to increase our talent level this offseason.

YardRat

11-05-2017, 05:11 PM

Arm of Harm

11-08-2017, 09:51 AM

Conversely, the coaching is head and shoulders above the rest of the drought participants, so my point still stands.

The players are different from the 90's, and the drought.
The coach are different from the 90's, and the drought.

That's the point.
The common thread throughout the drought years has been the lack of a quarterback. That thread has not yet been snapped. Hopefully the Bills will make a move this upcoming draft.

As for coaching: the best defensive coaching during my time as a Bills fan was Wade Phillips. (Although Phillips was just before the drought.) During the drought, the guys who provided the best defensive coaching were Schwartz and Pettine. I'm not yet sure where I'd rank McDermott's defensive coaching in terms of that group, but I do like what I've seen from him.

In terms of offensive coaching, our two best coordinators during the drought have been Chan Gailey and Greg Roman. Roman's scheme is ideal if you want a good running game, and if you have a mobile QB with limitations as a pure passer. Gailey's scheme is better if you want a good pure passing attack. It's too early for me to compare Dennison with Gailey or Roman.

McDermott appears to be the best head coach the Bills have had in a very long time. Granted that's not saying much.

feldspar

11-08-2017, 10:17 AM

What about 17 years is so hard to comprehend?

Watch the games, and then express your opinion.

Until then, you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Wally The Barber

11-09-2017, 06:23 AM

NO, I AM NOT OVER IT AND I REFUSE TO GIVE THE BILLS A PASS. A CULTURE CHANGE MEANS YOU DON'T LOSE TO A CRUMMY JETS TEAM LED BY FREAKIN LUKE MCGOWEN

THIS ENTIRE BILLS TEAM CAN BLOW ME.....

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2017/1102/r283659_576x324_16-9.jpg (http://www.espn.com/nfl/player/_/id/3609/josh-mccown)

OpIv37

11-10-2017, 09:40 AM

Your 'actual results' are just as relevant for this year's team as the results from the 90's when those teams were going to a Super Bowl over and over and over again.

How so? We have yet to replicate the 90's results whereas the actual results are losses over and over and over and over again....

And I take back part of what I said before. There is an explanation for it: ownership and management that just doesn't know how to build a winner.

OpIv37

11-10-2017, 09:44 AM

Can you honestly say you don't see any difference between this regime and the previous ones that had a significant roll in the 17 straight seasons?

Yeah but I've felt this way before 8 games into a new regime. It's too small of a sample size to be meaningful, as I've already shown.

And, we are already showing some of the same problems that have held us back in the past: struggles in night games, struggles in division games, inability to make adjustments. Remember, this was a team that we crushed in week 1. Their coaches adjusted to us. When they came out strong, we were unable to adjust to them.

Forward_Lateral

11-10-2017, 04:34 PM

Yeah but I've felt this way before 8 games into a new regime. It's too small of a sample size to be meaningful, as I've already shown.

And, we are already showing some of the same problems that have held us back in the past: struggles in night games, struggles in division games, inability to make adjustments. Remember, this was a team that we crushed in week 1. Their coaches adjusted to us. When they came out strong, we were unable to adjust to them.
The Jets could easily be 8-1. Since week 1, they actually look like a decent team.

justasportsfan

11-10-2017, 04:56 PM

If you're talking about me, I've consistently said that I'd love to be wrong about this team. And if I am, I'll gladly admit it. But, I'm not wrong yet:

2002- Started 5-3, ended 8-8
2003- Started 2-0 with two huge victories, finished 6-10
2005- Won the first game and everyone was excited about Losman, finished 5-11
2008- Started 4-0, finished 7-9
2011- Won the first 3 and got to 5-2, finished 6-10 (lost 7 straight and 8 of the last 9)
2014- Won the first 2, got to 5-3, finished with a winning record of 9-7 but still missed the playoffs
2016- Lost the first 2, won 4 straight to get to 4-2, still finished 7-9

Please stop making me post this.
Ha!

" Don't make this about ME. Only I can make this about ME.... OP"

Mace

11-10-2017, 09:54 PM

Yeah but I've felt this way before 8 games into a new regime. It's too small of a sample size to be meaningful, as I've already shown.

Too small a sample size to be meaningful goes both ways though. I'm still encouraged.

They're pretty obviously in transition and juggling "win now" with "build for tomorrow", and not doing bad with it. This isn't a completed team to reach conclusions about, because we know it's going to look different next year. They're not standing pat with the completed team they're going to roll with. Part of that is ojt for McDermott also, he's not a finished product as an HC. More encouragement that he appears more focused and deliberate in his actions than Jauron, Ryan, Marrone, etc....

It's absolutely your right, andtainly not without precedent, but I think it's too early to conclude it's the same old same old, same as it's too early to conclude it's absolutely going to work.

Looks more promising than usual to me though.